Armour feats - do they make sense?

[Shadowlord]

I woudln't necessarily go that far - I just think that the genre that D20M was aimed at was Heroic, rather than Realistic. And that's a valid design goal. It's just not appropriate for my game (and presumably not yours - in fact it was your thread that originally prompted me to look at armour in more detail).

I wasn't talking about realism, it's the guns altogether that don't make sense.
They tried not to make one weapon more worth it than the other by giving all the weapons the same crits and similar damage, but by doing so they actually created the contrary. some weapons ARE better than others.

For ex, why would you wanna take an Uzi if you can have an M16 since the M16 does more damage, has much better range, has a 50% larger magazine, is equally Large eek: Uzis are certainly smaller than full assault rifles!), weights the same, and even costs less.

The same counts for armor: by adding class bonus to DEF and not giving away free armor feats, they made armor obsolete!

***

I had a question considering your free fortification rule: does the % chance to avoid crits apply when the attack roll wasn't done against the wearer's own Defense but against a fixed Def like from autofire? Equally, if you score a threat with autofire, do you confirm the crit against Def 10 or against the individual's Def ?
In that respect, I think a bonus to MAS due to armor is easier to introduce.

 

[lmccauley]

The issue I'm trying to address in this thread is one of realism. I know that D20M isn't designed to be hugely realistic, so I'm modifying it to suit my game. However, before I amend certain rules, I thought it worth consulting with people here. And the responses so far have been useful to me.

Cheers,
Liam

P.S. please see the other armour thread for the answer to your last question.

 

[Thomas Hobbes]

By-the-by, if you want really realistic, I reccomend you check out this. "Grim-n-gritty" hitpoint rules. They don't seem to get more realistic than this, in my opinion.

As to armors, there's a reason that people don't use them that often in real life. They're big, bulky, conspicuous, and slow, for the most part, and all of those apply double to heavy armors.

If there was training, was it to maximise the effectiveness of the armour in stopping bullets, or was it to maximise mobility whilst wearing armour (represented by skill penalties in D20M)?

I think it should be explained as armor proficieny feats don't represent training but expierience.

"Maximising moblity" is represented by skill penalties, true- but it's also represented by dodging i.e AC. If someone who has never worn heavy armor before wears it, he's going to be as clumsy as hell. I think this generally clumsiness is well represented by the reduced AC.

I agree with adding the D&D rule of armor check penalty to attack rolls when one is nonproficient. As long as you used the D&D rules for nonproficiency, those are easliy enough of a deterrent to not wear armor you're not used to, and the reduced bonus to AC could be scrapped. Also, I see no problem grouping armors in to 2 categories. I must reiterate, though, that if d20 modern makes armor seem obsolete, that's proboably because, for the most part, it is.

 

[lmccauley]

By-the-by, if you want really realistic, I reccomend you check out this. "Grim-n-gritty" hitpoint rules. They don't seem to get more realistic than this, in my opinion.

Ooh - I like . Think I'll print that out & steal ideas for my Millenium's End game.

As to armors, there's a reason that people don't use them that often in real life. They're big, bulky, conspicuous, and slow, for the most part, and all of those apply double to heavy armors.

Yes, I know - which affects the decision about when to wear them. I'm going to be running a technothriller game based on the Millenium's End background. Characters will typically wear concealed armour for most of the time, except when they plan to be involved in a heavy tactical situation, in which case they generally try and put as much kevlar, ceramic and steel between themselves and their opposition...

I think it should be explained as armor proficieny feats don't represent training but expierience.

"Maximising moblity" is represented by skill penalties, true- but it's also represented by dodging i.e AC. If someone who has never worn heavy armor before wears it, he's going to be as clumsy as hell. I think this generally clumsiness is well represented by the reduced AC.

I agree with adding the D&D rule of armor check penalty to attack rolls when one is nonproficient. As long as you used the D&D rules for nonproficiency, those are easliy enough of a deterrent to not wear armor you're not used to, and the reduced bonus to AC could be scrapped. Also, I see no problem grouping armors in to 2 categories. I must reiterate, though, that if d20 modern makes armor seem obsolete, that's proboably because, for the most part, it is.

I disagree that armour is obsolete - it is very effective if you are facing an armed opponent! Otherwise why do SWAT wear body armour?

I take your point, though, about having reduce mobility if you aren't proficient with the armour, and that translates to a reduced chance to dodge out of the way. I'll think about that a bit more.

Actually, the grim&gritty rules look just like what I was after. I'm definitely going to adapt them for my own game. Low HP progression, armour reducing damage rather than making you harder to hit. Oh yes, this looks ideal for Millenium's End.

Cheers,
Liam

 

[Thomas Hobbes]

You're welcome, I only wish I had written them myself, or even found them myself (rather than have someone else on this board point them out to me....) What's Mellenium's End, anyway?

 

[lmccauley]

What's Mellenium's End, anyway?

It's a technothriller game set in Miami. Here's an archive of the publisher's website. It was designed by Charles Ryan (yes, that Charles Ryan). I always liked the background and the system was good in parts, but a little clunky and complex in other ways. I've run about half a dozen games using the original system, spread over a few years, and I fancied starting up again using D20 so that my players would pretty much know the rules straight away.

Cheers,
Liam

 

[Mistwell]

I wasn't talking about realism, it's the guns altogether that don't make sense.
They tried not to make one weapon more worth it than the other by giving all the weapons the same crits and similar damage, but by doing so they actually created the contrary. some weapons ARE better than others.

For ex, why would you wanna take an Uzi if you can have an M16 since the M16 does more damage, has much better range, has a 50% larger magazine, is equally Large eek: Uzis are certainly smaller than full assault rifles!), weights the same, and even costs less.

First, I think you are making a huge Hasty Generalization.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html

You use one example where you personally think a choice is apparent between two guns, and conclude from that that guns altogether do not make sense. That's a fallacy. Most guns in the system compare in a fairly balanced way.

Second, I feel you are mistaken even on the example you use. The Uzi has a collapsable stock, making it extremely compact and concealable when not in use (and the stcok is mentioned in its description). The M16 does not have this advantage. And it can be a HUGE advantage to be able to hide an Uzi under your leather jacket, when you cannot do the same with an M16. So if you are going into danger in an open field, then you want the M16 for its greater range and slightly higher damage. But if you are going into danger in a bar, you want the Uzi due to it's concealability, despite it doing on average one point less in damage and having a bigger range (which probably means nothing inside a bar).

 

[Shadowlord]

You use one example where you personally think a choice is apparent between two guns, and conclude from that that guns altogether do not make sense. That's a fallacy. Most guns in the system compare in a fairly balanced way.

What about a Steyr AUG? Compared to the M16, the Steyr is much more expensive but has the same stats.
And the uzi is Large, its entry doesn't say anything of it becoming smaller when you don't use the stock.
Other example: M4 -> as Large as the M16, all's the same except the M4 has smaller range.
Etc etc.

Check THIS LINK.

 

[Mistwell]

It DOES say it becomes smaller without the stock! Read it again. And it's backed up in Ultramodern firearms with further description about that feature.

I'll check the oter weapons you mention later (watching the war right now), but I bet they turn out to have other advantages you didn't notice also.

 

[lmccauley]

What about a Steyr AUG? Compared to the M16, the Steyr is much more expensive but has the same stats.
And the uzi is Large, its entry doesn't say anything of it becoming smaller when you don't use the stock.
Other example: M4 -> as Large as the M16, all's the same except the M4 has smaller range.
Etc etc.

Well, in the granularity of the D20M system, the stats of an M16 and Steyr are the same, other than cost (& weight - the Steyr being slightly heavier). What should the designers have done - make one gun unrealistically different from the other or just not listed one of them?

As for reasons about why a character might pick a Steyr rather than an M16:
- he could originate from a country that uses the Steyr in their military (and yes, one of my player's characters picked a FA MAS for just this reason);
- status - a Steyr looks much cooler than an M16 .

As for an Uzi & an M16, yes they do weigh the same (as they do in real life). An Uzi is almost exactly the same dimensions as an HK MP5 (26 inches vs 27 inches length) which is also size Large. Folding the stock takes it down to 19 inches, which is still bigger than an MP5K (13 inches). Either the break-point for Med/Large is between 13 and 19 inches, or the designers forgot to note that folding the stock on the Uzi would take it down to Med size for concealment purposes. You could always rule that it's half way between, so give a -2 on concealment rolls. Either way, you could probably get an uzi in a large briefcase, but not an M16...

M4 vs M16 - again, the granularity of the system for size is too large to reflect the advantage of the shorter length of the M4.

You seem to be saying (& apologies if I've mis-understood) that the stats for weapons are badly done because they make some weapons better than others. I would say that this is partly because of the coarse granularity of parts of the system (size - only T/S/M/L/H to cover all weapons) and because some characteristics of a weapon simply aren't modelled in the system (e.g. the time to get a weapon on target - I'd rather have an M4 than an M16 in CQB). I think it's a bad idea to try and compensate for those things by making the weapons even less realistic.

Cheers,
Liam